Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 886 (JHR)

Tikait Mistry v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner in the instant case came out successful for appointment as Constable under advertisement no.1/2004 and was also called to appear through memo no.300 dated 5.3.2008 issued by the respondent no.3, Superintendent of Police, Koderma along with his certificates of educational qualification at Police Line, Koderma. However, the respondents refused to appoint him on the ground that his date of birth mentioned in his certificate appeared to be interpolated as there was overwriting on it. Thereafter petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2009 in the present writ application for commanding upon the respondents to take a decision on his claim and issue appointment letter on the said post. 3. During the proceedings of the case on the instant controversy, vide order dated 3.5.2010, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koderma was directed by this Court, which is as follows:- “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's date of birth is clearly reflected at Annexure-4 (Page 18) of the petition as well as at page no.20 of the petition and there is no overwriting of the date of birth. Not a single letter has been overwritten and then also, the case of the petitioner after due selection on the post of Constable has been brushed aside, on the ground that there is some overwriting in date of birth certificate, given by the school, as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, filed by respondent no.3. 2. I therefore, direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Koderma to present before this Court the original record of the present petitioner, so that the factual aspect about the date of birth, which is referred at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit can be checked by this Court vis-a-vis page nos.20 and 21 of the present petition because as per the aforesaid annexure annexed with the petition, there is no overwriting at all. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to verify Annexure-4 series, annexed with the memo of the petition from the concerned school and therefore, he has prayed for longer time. 4. Time, as prayed for, is granted. 5. Post this matter on 25th May, 2010.” 4. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to verify Annexure-4 series, annexed with the memo of the petition from the concerned school and therefore, he has prayed for longer time. 4. Time, as prayed for, is granted. 5. Post this matter on 25th May, 2010.” 4. After few adjournments and pursuant to the subsequent order dated 31.10.2012 a show cause was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Koderma on 11.12.2012 enclosing Annexure-A, a report submitted after examination of the relevant records of the petitioner from the concerned school on the issue of his date of birth. Submissions have also been made in the said show cause that the date of birth of the petitioner was found to be 1972 and not 1970. The report at Annexure-A concludes that the petitioner, s/o Jaipal Mistry Chatro, P.S. Devri was having the date of birth as 18.2.1972. That has been corroborated from the enrollment register, school leaving certificate, cross list of Bihar School Examination Board as also the duplicate school leaving certificate issued by the school. Petitioner, in view of the instant facts brought on record after due verification, has sought direction upon the respondents to now issue him appointment letter under the same advertisement which apparently remained pending on account of such controversy. 5. Though, learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon certain averments made in the counter affidavit that petitioner has submitted his necessary certificates after a lapse of 8 months on 8.11.2008 and the panel had expired, but it is also true that the said certificates were duly verified by the respondents and on the basis of alleged discrepancy on the date of birth no final decision was taken on their behalf. It is also clear that the selection process in respect of the said advertisement was closed only on a conscious decision of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand convened through letter dated 18.8.2010, as has been reported by the State-Respondents in several such writ petitions in respect of claim of appointment under the same advertisement. 6. In such circumstances, when the writ petition was preferred in the year 2009 itself immediately after the cause of action arose for the petitioner, the said ground feebly argued by the State Counsel cannot be accepted to defeat the cause of action of the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, when the writ petition was preferred in the year 2009 itself immediately after the cause of action arose for the petitioner, the said ground feebly argued by the State Counsel cannot be accepted to defeat the cause of action of the petitioner. The controversy relating to date of birth having been resolved in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents referred through show cause filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koderma dated 11.12.2012, it is now incumbent upon the concerned respondents to take a final decision in the matter of issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5483 of 2013 also stands disposed of.